About Me

In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen

Have you ever seen sincere Christians feel uncomfortable with their Bible teaching regarding alcohol? Well you will see two in this video.

Here we see Ray Comfort and one of his colleagues from Living Waters seem to prefer Islam's teaching on alcohol (total prohibition) rather than their Bible's teaching (allowed as long as you don't get drunk).

Alcohol is the drink which Satan uses to sow enmity and hatred between humans plus hinder people from the remembrance of our Creator (Allah). Why does the New Testament not forbid it? Why did Paul not ban it?

We must also remind folk that alcohol, even in moderation, is a risk factor for cancer

It should stimulate Christians to look into Islam as Islam has a better stance on alcohol than Christianity - a stance that is better for our spiritual and physical well being.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Saturday, 27 July 2013

Post 9-11 propaganda against Islam attempts to portray Muslims as hordes waiting to invade the West to butcher, enslave and rape. One such propaganda piece is that 'Muslims are allowed to rape female slaves/captives'. This is simply propaganda which is designed to further the fear-mongering and hatred of Muslims.Is rape of slave girls allowed?Rape of a slave girl is an extremely violent act. Yet, Prophet Muhammad(P) condemned even slapping a slave:

Zadhan Abl Umar reported: I came to Ibn 'Umar as he had granted freedom to a slave. He (the narrator further) said: He took hold of a wood or something like it from the earth and said: It (freedom of a slave) has not the reward evert equal to it, but the fact that I heard Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him) say: He who slaps his slave or beats him, the expiation for it is that he should set him free.Source: Sahih Muslim, Book 015, Number 4078

"He who slaps his slave" means both male and female: Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free.Source: Sahih Muslim, Book 015, Number 4082The second you strike a slave, she is no longer your property and she is free. You now have no rights upon her. Therefore it is impossible to commit this act if you can not even slap nor beat a slave.If you can not beat then how can you rape!Is there any instance of rape in the Islamic sources?Many may not know this, but the Islamic historical references are so vast and tremendous, a western audience has never seen anything the size it:

Yet those anti-Islamic critics will have us to believe that tens of thousands of women are being brutally raped! Yet you can not find 1 single instance of this happening in this vast amount of historical data!http://www.examinethetruth.com/compared/rape.html#islamrapeConclusionSo here we see even slapping a slave girl is not allowed. Therefore we realise, it's obvious rape is not allowed as rape entails violence and hurt towards the slave girls (something which is forbidden in Islam).We also see there is no source (despite the vastness of the Islamic source texts) in Islamic texts which show an instance of rape. Thus it's unfair and disingenuous to present claims of rape.Forced Sex with Slaves in Islam?Here the well respected and learned Sheikh Atabek Shukrov Nasafi confirms raping slave girls is not allowed in Islam. I have produced some bullet points to summarise his presentation below the video.~ The sheikh could not find anything in Hanafi fiqh which taught forced sex of slaves is allowed.~ The sheikh cites the Quran (4:36) to show that one should be good to the slaves (obviously rape is not treating slaves well thus rape does not seem to be allowed in Islam)Worship Allah and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor), the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Verily, Allah does not like such as are proud and boastful [Translation of the meanings of Quran 4:36 by Muhsin Khan]http://quran.com/4/36~ The sheikh also cites Quran 24:33 to show that slave women cannot be forced into prostitutionAnd let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah enriches them of His Bounty. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you know that they are good and trustworthy. And give them something yourselves out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the (perishable) goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them (to prostitution), then after such compulsion, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to those women, i.e. He will forgive them because they have been forced to do this evil action unwillingly). [Translation of the meanings of Quran 24:33 by Muhsin Khan] http://quran.com/24/33Thus we see slave women cannot be forced into sex with others (prostitution). ~ The sheikh refers to a narration where Prophet Muhammad (p) repeated (many times) the order to take care of your slaves.[Obviously, rape would be against such a teaching. Thus one would not imagine rape to be allowed in Islam]~ The sheikh cites a hadith where we learn the Prophet taught that the slaves should be fed the same food as the slave master, the same clothes should be given to the slave as those worn by the slave-master and the slave-master should not make the slaves do something which is difficult for them - if they are made to do the difficult task the slave-master must help the slave.[Of course forced sex is much worse than not feeding or clothing the slave to one's own standard - thus one would not imagine rape of slaves to be allowed. Think about it]~ The sheikh also makes mention of a narration which teaches us not to punish or oppress slaves.[Of course based on this and the nature of rape one would not consider rape to be allowed]~ The sheikh cites a hadith where we see burning the slave and/or cutting their noses/ears is not accepted - the slave must be freed if this was to occur.~ The sheikh cites a hadith in which we see the slaves' emotional feelings are considered as a slave master cannot even call them by the term 'my slave' and a more sensitive term should be used.[Think about it, if the slave's emotional feelings are considered how can one say rape is allowed when rape not only involves physical pain but also emotional pain - both of which are not allowed in Islam]~ The sheikh cites a hadith which shows beating or slapping a slave is not allowed [Rape involves elements of violence - thus how can one say rape of slaves is allowed when violence towards slaves is not allowed?]~ The sheikh cites a narration where we see killing the slave is not allowed and nor is castrating (chopping off the private parts) The sheikh also teaches sexual intercourse with slave girls is similar to the manner one has intercourse with their wife (i.e. not like an animal, trying to satisfy the wife during sex, preparing before intercourse). [Thus one can see that saying rape of slave girls is allowed is unfair]

ConclusionThe basic theme is here, one cannot physically hurt his slave thus rape is not allowed as rape entails traumatic pain. We see that slaves' feelings are not allowed to even be hurt thus further indicating rape is not something which is allowed by Islam. Also note that the sheikh taught that the intercourse with the slave girl is similar to that of with the wife (where the wife's sexual satisfaction is considered too).We also see there was nothing found in the Hanafi school of jurisprudence which supports the claim of rape being allowed.Does Islam permit Muslim men to rape their slave girls?http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_Bassam Zawadi in this article shows rape to be something which is not allowed in Islam. Aside from the theme above Bassam introduces new themes for thought - one of which being the view of some scholars where the slave girl has to convert to Islam before any intercourse can be had with a slave girl who happened to be an idol-worshipper.His concluding remarks:Islam forbids one to harm those under his authority. Since rape is considered a form of harm that would mean that rape is forbidden. We have also seen that history shows that slave girls in the past did consent to having sex with their captors; hence we must keep our subjective emotions aside and agree with this objective fact. In light of this fact, there is nothing absurd in believing that the Muslims did not rape their slave girls especially since they were forbidden from doing so. And even if some of the Muslims back then did rape their slave girls, this would only show that they committed a sinful act and not that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of such behavior. In conclusion, Islam does not permit the Muslim man to rape his slave girl.Overall ConclusionIt's clear that the basic theme in Islam of looking after and not hurting the slaves would prohibit rape.Islam as a religion does not allow rape of slave girls. Those who are propagating anti-Muslim propaganda on such matters should really desist and check their sincerity.Invitation to Islam

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. [KJV]

Nadir with regards to Numbers 31:18 writes:

The only way to know if a woman is a virgin is for these men to inspect the hymen of the vagina to see if it is intactEven if the account in Numbers 31:17-18 is true, this would not necessarily mean these men forced the young girls to have a virginity test as in ancient times it was generally quite easy to discern a virgin from a non-virgin girl. Girls as soon as they hit puberty would have been married in ancient times. Thus merely by looking at a girl in those times one could generally discern between married and unmarried (or in other words, virgins and non-virgins).

Conclusion

Even if this account was true, the idea of forced virginity tests being conducted is far-fetched. More thought and sensitivity is required here.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

This is an interesting comparison brought to my attention by Nadir Ahmed between a teaching from s Bible verse and a hadith concerning beating slaves. Here we notice that beating a severe extent (as long as he gets up after a day or two) carries no punishment in the Bible but in Islam if one slaps or beats his slave then the expiation is that the slave must be set free.

In Islam beating or even slapping a slave is not allowed. However the Bible does not carry any punishment for a sever beating of a slave. I hope the sincere Christian will think about this the next time one of his/her co-religionists is attempting to present Islam in a negative manner.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Friday, 26 July 2013

Now I've witnessed shoddy Christian apologetics to the extent where the Christian apologist is making stuff up or just presenting nonsense. Here we see a Christian apologist, Sam Shamoun of ABN, presenting an explanation of Numbers 31:17-18 which he seems to have just made up on the fly.

Do these Christian apologists actually think about what they are saying or do they automatically assume their Christian audience is half-asleep and/or stultified of mind?

Here's the passage the Christian apologist attempts to explain:

17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31:17-18 NIV]Watch this astonishingly confusing explanation of Numbers 31:17-18

What's that I hear?
Do I hear a stampede of disgruntled Christian donors to this Christian apologist's house asking for their cash back? Do I hear Bassim Gorial calling the bank to cancel any cheques he handed this man for such an insufficient and confusing explanation?

I remember reading in a book that said all the intelligentsia left Christianity for communism a few decades ago. I genuinely believe Christians have lost many of their intellectuals to secular humanism in current times and thus are reliant on a string of apologists who are not the best intellectually (in the case of this Christian apologist, Sam Shamoun, almost bankrupt in this regard).

The question I have for the Christians out there, why are you relying on folklike the apologist in the video? Surely it only presents you and your community in a negative (and even intellectually dishonest) light...
﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

﻿﻿﻿﻿

I publish this video to counter this man's money making operations on the net and warn people from his shoddy and intellectually dishonest apologetics. Do you really think he should get paid for such arguments?

Explanation

This is one of the problems with amateur Christian apologists who are collecting cash on the net. Rather than just saying they don't know, they turn up with a dud light-bulb stuck to their head presenting theories that just don't make sense and/or make them look intellectually dishonest.

As for the Numbers 31:17-18 that Christians (and Jews) struggle with, why not just accept a Muslim understanding of them - that's to say you don't know whether those teachings are actually from God or just forgeries added to the OT?! Simple. Problem solved!

Christians need to stop employing amateur Christian apologists who make stuff up to make them feel better about Old Testament passages they don't understand.

For a believer, if they believe God did something they don't need to make up excuses.

Invitation to something better

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Thursday, 25 July 2013

Samuel Green, an Australian Christian preacher discusses the fact that the New Testament teaches Jesus (p) is not all-knowing. The discussion is with Muslim apologist Ijaz Ahmed of Calling Christians.

One can easily see Samuel Green is not making sense and appears confusing. I just hope Samuel and any other Christian who saw this conversation thread thinks about this tonight and sincerely gives the pure monotheism of Islam a thought.

Trinitarians are left refuted by their own New Testament teachings which teach Jesus (p) is not all-knowing. It's time to accept the plain and obvious - Jesus (p) is not divine but rather he is a Prophet of God.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Unauthorised and anonymous people wrote the collection of books we now know as the New Testament. Jesus (p) never saw the New Testament that Christians preach today. The question of whether they have the New Testament in its unadulterated form becomes somewhat academic in theological circles (i.e. in the theological circles of those who care about the teachings of Jesus (p)) as there is no evidence that the writers of the New Testament are people who were sanctioned by Jesus (p)

Here is a retort by Paul Williams of bloggingtheology to a Christian who was proclaiming that scholars are confident that they have over 90% of the original NT.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

1) What are your thoughts on the authenticity of the Gospel of Judas? Is ink testing and comparison, in your opinion, an adequate method of determining the validity of an ancient text?
Paleography—the discipline of analyzing, deciphering, and dating ancient manuscripts—is little known outside of specialized circles. Traditionally, scholars especially use handwriting analysis to date manuscripts. Handwriting changes over time, and ancient Greek papyri, of which there are hundreds of thousands still in existence, give us plenty of illustrations of these changes. Actual dated papyri give us concrete evidence for when a particular style of writing was used.

Of course, the manuscripts do not use our modern dating system. Instead, they are indexed to the reigns of the Caesars, mention a known person in an official capacity whose dates are known, or speak of astronomical events. For example, a petition to a government official written in “the 25th year of Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Caesar” was penned in AD 216. By such fixed dates on some of the papyri, scholars can fix the patterns of handwriting of other papyri to a range of dates. On such undated papyri, the range can be as short as fifty years.

But Coptic manuscripts are notoriously difficult to date because the handwriting was more stable than Greek manuscripts. Pinpointing the date to within one hundred years is difficult, if not impossible, in most cases. Ink analysis is important because of the shifts in ancient technology and methods that can be located in time. Radiocarbon dating is not usually used on ancient manuscripts because, until recently, it necessarily destroyed part of the document being analyzed. Apparently, radiocarbon dating was used on the Gospel of Judas, however. (There is a relatively new method for dating manuscripts that is non-destructive. I did not see any discussion of this in the report. Developed by Dr. Marvin Rowe of Texas A & M University and his doctoral assistant, Professor Karen Steelman, the method uses a plasma chamber that does not damage the artifact. See Marvin W. Rowe and Karen L. Steelman, “Non-destructive 14C Dating: Plasma-Chemistry and Supercritical Fluid Extraction,” March 2010, ACS National Meeting 2010. So it would indeed have been possible to get a relatively firm date on this fragment without destroying any text.) One problem with all kinds of radiocarbon dating, however, is that this too cannot give a precise date. Depending on the age of the artifact, the range can vary widely.

The recent revelations by Joseph Barabe indicate a date of “approximately A.D. 280,” but this seems to be more precise than the technology would suggest. Most likely, the confluence of ink analysis and radiocarbon dating have both legitimately authenticated this codex and fixed the date to the late third to early fourth century.

2) What criticisms do you have of the Gospel of Judas’ authenticity?
It is important to distinguish two concepts regarding its authenticity. First, there is the issue of whether this document is a modern forgery or a bona fide ancient text. The evidence seems to be quite strong that this is the latter. Second, when we hear the word ‘authentic’ regarding an early sub-Christian writing it is natural to conclude that authentic = true as regards the historicity of the Christian faith. This is not the case in this instance. All that is being claimed is that the manuscript really was produced in the late third century.

3) If it became a fact that the Gospel of Judas were real, how would this change the study of the New Testament?
Most likely, the original Gospel of Judas was written in the second half of the second century. Irenaeus, writing in about AD 180, condemned a gospel by this name as a fake, and described its contents as revealing that Judas “alone, who knew the truth as no one else did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal” of Jesus. This fits well with the contents of the codex, in which Jesus praises Judas as the one who will set his spirit free from the bonds of his physical body. This is vintage Gnosticism, which made a hard distinction between the spiritual and material world, branding the one good and the other bad. But does this mean that there is any historical truth to the Gospel of Judas, that it actually tells us the real story about the relation of Jesus to Judas? Hardly. Not a single scholar thinks that this conversation has any historical credibility. Irenaeus was right: this is a fake gospel which promotes a heretical idea about Jesus of Nazareth. The discovery and authentication of the Judas codex does nothing to disturb that assessment.
From: http://danielbwallace.com/

Tuesday, 23 July 2013

This lady's father is a born-again Christian pastor and she has converted to Islam. This is a good video for Christians on the net who have family members with strong religious affiliations to Christianity.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Here is Royalson's comment:Ok Yahya, I see your comment has made its way back. Thank you for that. I look forward to your coming response when time permits.

On another note, in reading your review of the debate itself, I observed that you handed the victory to Osama purely on the basis of his argument for Deuteronomy 18:18. However, Anthony pointed out that the context demonstrates that the bretheren being spoken of are the bretheren of the Levites, which of course would refer to the remaining 11 tribes of Israel. In light of this you acknowledged that it was an interesting point that you would need to look into.

I draw attention to this Yahya, because if Anthony is correct regarding the interpretation based upon the context, then it would seem to me that the single point that you felt won Osama the debate is actually lost to Anthony. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the text that would lead one to look beyond the 12 tribes of Israel to some foreign peoples. Such an interpretation breaks the flow and intention of the text.

I would like to point out a couple of other things as well. You mention that Muhammad did in fact see Allah face to face in the Night Journey. However, I do not see any Hadith which recount the Night Journey, ever mentioning Muhammad seeing Allah's face. Could you please direct me to the reference which mentions Allah's face?

With regards to what Radical Moderate is saying, the doctrine of the Divine Trinity is certainly compatible with the "prophet like Moses" seeing God face to face. God is often used as an appellation of any one of the three persons of the Divine Trinity, much like in Acts 20:28 which speaks of God's own blood. The understanding in that verse is not that the Father shed blood, nor the Holy Spirit, but specifically the Son. In like manner, Christ the Son saw God face to face. In other words, He beheld the Father. To back up this interpretation, we find Peter identifying Christ as the prophet like Moses in His sermon in Acts chapter 3 and Stephen's defense in Acts 7 likewise identify's Christ as that prophet like Moses. Would you not agree that these are the earliest interpretations of Deuteronomy 18:18 we have attributed to Christ's followers? I believe you would be hard pressed to find something to the contrary in the manuscript tradition that would lead you to original readings of these verses against the ones that we have in the New Testament.1. With regards to Osama's points winning the debate - yes his points on Deut 18 won the debate. I say this based on an accumulative case he presented. Anthony was floundering and was in fact shifting the goal posts - that's not because he is an inferior debater than Osama (in fact he presentation-wise is much stronger than Osama). It's simply a case of what he had to appeal to was less convincing than that of which Osama had.The point of brother or relative is the only one which Anthony could lay reasonable claim to being stronger than Osama's imo. That's all. Think about it, Deut 18 is always going to be about an accumulative argument, thus you can't just point to one reasoned contention Anthony presents and then dismiss all the other points which happened to be noticeably weaker than Osama's.2. No, I did not mention in the debate review that the Prophet (p) saw Allah face to face. The Prophet (p) spoke directly with Him (he had direct communication with Him). 3. I don't understand why appeals from the NT claiming Jesus (p) is that Prophet (p) are that important - especially their earliness. Early in this regard does not matter as Prophet Muhammad (p) came roughly 600 years later. For all we know there could have been false claimants to being 'the Prophet' before the Common Era.4. Aside from this, Osama did not point out that in John 1 (19-21) the Messiah and 'the Prophet' were in fact differentiated as two distinct beings, thus going by that reading Prophet Jesus (p) could not be 'the Prophet' as Prophet Jesus (p) is the Messiah.5. The debate was a little one-dimensional. It's almost like these people who organise debates don't think about serving up something different. In my view, the debate would have been more interesting if the Christian side had to get off the fence and present a case for whom they thought Deut18:18 was referring to as well. As far as I know, this type of debate has not been done before; who does Deut 18:18 refer to, Prophets Jesus or Muhammad (pbut)? Now that is an idea. If there is any debate organiser reading, please ensure the debaters for this topic are of a higher standard.6. Royalson, also keep in mind, Osama just accepted the debate at short notice - 11th hour stuff. He took up 4 debates too. Here you have a guy who just turns up unprepared and still manages to present more of a convincing argument on Deut 18 than Anthony who would have had weeks/months to prepare (?) whilst his opponent has 4 debates to do. Factor into this equation that Osama is not a comfortable debater. For me that is a testament to the strength of the argument that the Muslims have with regards to Deut 18. 7. Royalson, for me you have to also look at things holistically, you can't just look at arguments against Prophet Muhammad (p) in this case as you have to look at who else is being argued to be 'the Prophet' (p) - namely Prophet Jesus (p). For me the arguments Christians present here are messy and actually get even messier when factoring in the Trinitarian theology. Think about it, the Trinitarian whilst arguing for such a case (based on his/her Trinitarian beliefs) is effectively saying; Prophet Moses (p) is like God, God put His words into His Mouth, God is the brother of Jews, God will tell people what God commanded, God will raise up GodHere is the verse and just look how messy it would get for Trinitarian arguments for Prophet Jesus (p) to be such a person:“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.” (The Holy Bible, New International Version, Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 18).I know the Trinitarians have this belief of three persons but even if they attempt to reconcile based on the argument of 'persons' (and incarnation) they still have the issue of why the verse just doesn't say something such as 'I [God] will come...'So for me, the Trinitarian understanding is deeply flawed and their arguments for Prophet Jesus to be 'the Prophet' (pbut) raises more confusion for the Trinitarian.From a Unitarian point of view, the arguments for Prophet Muhammad (p) to be 'the Prophet' (p) are indeed still stronger - especially in light of John 1 where it's implied the Messiah is not 'the Prophet' (they are two distinct people).

PS Royalson, I may do a separate one on Deut 33:2 so in this comment section perhaps it's better to solely focus on Deut 18. You can always remind me about Deut 33:2 at a later date. Thanks

Conclusion

So for me, the question is, if not Prophet Muhammad (p) then who? There's nobody else who fits the criteria better. Muslim debaters need to start adding other aspects to debates rather then playing out the same debate with different personalities as it just becomes a personality contest where they all present the same arguments but in a different manner. So if you're a Muslim debater and are thinking of agreeing to a topic concerning Deut 18 then add this new aspect to the debate - it's more beneficial to the truth-seeker and actually benefits the MUSLIM ARGUMENT!
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Sunday, 21 July 2013

Here we see the Islamophobic Christian Pastor (Joesph Najm ABNSat) claiming he does not understand the hijab yet Christianity has similar teachings of covering the head and dressing modestly - sadly in modern times we are seeing Christians forgetting the teachings of modesty so much so that they are criticising Muslim women who wear the hijab.

In the video we see a study shows that modestly dressed women receive respectful thoughts as compared to women dressed in a bikini (immodest dress).

The Pastor claims believing in Christianity will prevent temptation was diametrically opposed to the statistics which showed 80% of Christian evangelical youths in America engaged in premarital sex.

Here are some quotes offered by Brother Jesus regarding the age of consent concerning the Bible and Jewish traditions, the interesting thing to note here is that the post-modern ages of consent we see in the Western world are not Biblical. Hence, the ages of consent in Christian America and Christian Europe are not in line with the Bible as the Biblical teaching is in fact puberty which can take place as early as 8 years of age.

Are American and British ages of consent Biblical? No.

The Bible provides no foundation for fixing a minimum age, that much is evidently clear.

Carol L. Meyers writes:“The Bible gives us no indication as to the age of marriage for women, which would not be appreciably different from the age at which childbearing begins. However, based on the tenuous calculations of the marriage age of certain Judean kings (e.g. Josiah: age 14; Amon: 14) and the rabbinic stipulation of twelve as the minimum age of marriage for girls and thirteen for boys, an early age for marriage can be presumed (de Vaux 1961: 29). Similarly, the relatively short life spans of the ancient world, particularly in plague epochs, would lead to the conclusion that marriage took place soon after puberty, with betrothal preceding marriage perhaps by many years.” (Meyers, C. L. (1996). Procreation, Production, and Protection: Male-Female Balance in Early Israel. In Charles E. Carter & Carol L. Meyers (eds.), Community, Identity, and Ideology: Social Sciences Approaches to the Hebrew Bible. United States: Eisenbrauns. p. 507)

Referring to De Vaux whom is cited by Meyers he wrote:“The Bible gives us no information about the age at which girls are married. The practice of marrying the eldest first was not universal (Gn 29:26). On the other hand, it seems certain that girls, and therefore presumably boys too, were married very young; for centuries this has been the custom of the East, and in many places it still obtains to-day.” (De Vaux, R. (1997). Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (John McHugh, trans.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. EerdmansPublishing Co. p. 29)

Age of marriage is puberty according to the Bible:

We have already seen Ezekiel 16 being used as a proof text by a Christian apologist to show the Biblical age of consent is puberty:

...Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.8 " 'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love...[taken from Ezekiel 16]See here for more information on this see:http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/age-of-consent-in-bible-is-puberty.htmlScholar Nisan Rubin writes:“Grooms could marry at the age of 18-20 (or older) with a young girl, twelve years old, who had “reached puberty.”… The ideal was to marry off girls while still minors, since they constituted an economic burden…” (Rubin, N. (2008). Time and Life Cycle in Talmud and Midrash. Brighton, Massachusetts: Academic Studies Press. p. 16) Young girls were usually betrothed as soon as they became women. It was believed they reached puberty at about twelve or twelve and a half.” (Deiss, L. (1996). Joseph, Mary, Jesus (Madeleine Beaumont, trans.). Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press. p. 25)

“The women normally married as soon as they were physically able to bear children, which the Law defined as twelve and a half years of age. (Zanzig, T. (1999). Jesus of History, Christ of Faith. Terrace Heights, Winona: Saint Mary’s Press, Christian Brothers Publication. p. 89)How old was Mary (p)?

“How old could Mary have been? Young girls were usually betrothed as soon as they became women. It was believed they reached puberty at about twelve or twelve and a half.” (Deiss, L. (1996). Joseph, Mary, Jesus (Madeleine Beaumont, trans.). Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press. p. 25)

“The women normally married as soon as they were physically able to bear children, which the Law defined as twelve and a half years of age. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably no older than fourteen when she bore him.” (Zanzig, T. (1999). Jesus of History, Christ of Faith. Terrace Heights, Winona: Saint Mary’s Press, Christian Brothers Publication. p. 89)

Echoing the same viewpoint Dr. Eugene Weitzel states:“He knew too that girls were ready for marriage as soon as they were physically ready to conceive and bear children, which according to the law was twelve and one-half years. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably no more than fourteen years old when she gave birth to the Son of God.” (Weitzel, E. J. (2010). I Want to Be a Husband and Father for Life and a Catholic Priest Forever. U.S.: Xilbris Corporation. p. 113)

“There is less evidence regarding female age at marriage . As noted , the overwhelming impression given in the legal sources is that fathers betrothed their daughters while they were still minors .”
SOURCE: Michael L. Satlow in ‘Jewish Marriage in Antiquity’,pg.107

The following is something that needs further research as it's something that does not seem right. I'm not saying this is the case in Jewish communities - I don't believe it is. I believe in ancient Israel Jews used the onset of puberty as a biological sign that the girl has attained womanhood.

“Conversely, if a girl is three years and one day, she can be betrothed by sexual intercourse.” He continues writing, “Obviously, the Mishnah does not say that a woman should be betrothed at the age of three or hat this is a standard age to do so. It is, rather, mentioned as the minimal age.” (Teugels, L. M. (2004). Bible and Midras: The Story of ‘The Wooing of Rebekah’ (Gen. 24). Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan. pp. 218-220)

Teugels in his discussion on the subject also cites Judith Hauptman who writes:“After three, if a man has sex with a girl, not only does he cause her to lose her virginity permanently, but also- and precisely because of this-the sex act has a variety of legal consequences for both of them: for him, if she were forbidden to him, he will be punished in the same way as if she were a mature woman; for her, if the sexual relations were for the sake of marriage, they will make her a married woman.” (Ibid. pp. 218-219)

Conclusion

Apart from the controversial quotes above we can easily see that there is no age of consent for Christians and Jews - the standard is puberty. This is something Christians should be aware of - especially those ignorant ones who busy themselves insulting other faiths (namely Islam) for having the same Biblical teaching of puberty being the minimum age of consummation of a marriage.

Sadly many Christians are whitewashed into thinking the laws in the America or Britain are Christian. They are not. Just because America and some European countries profess to be 'Christian' nations it does not mean every law in that country is Biblical. Think about it, do you really think the allowance of pornography, sex outside marriage, homosexual acts and gambling are Biblical just because 'Christian' America allows such?

The same applies to American and British ages of consent - they are not from Christianity or Judaism.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Saturday, 20 July 2013

To the Angry Christians out there who are insulting Muslims based on Muslim minimum age of sex being puberty, please look into your Bible and realise it's the SAME for the Bible too.

The problem with these Christian critics is simple, they just don't know what their own Bible teaches them. These people are so busy putting others down yet don't even realise they are putting their own Bible down (literally and metaphorically) in the process.

There is an interesting sign for those who reflect, it's interesting that the biggest criticism (marriage to Aisha) Christian critics presented to attack the Prophetic brother of Prophet Jesus (Prophet Muhammad pbut)is actually perfectly acceptable according to the Bible. Think about it.

It's time for these Christians to repent to God (the God of Prophet Jesus).

Christian evangelists and apologists, having attacked Prophet Muhammad (p) due to his marriage to Lady Aisha (consummated when she had reached puberty), are realising the marriage of Lady Aisha to Prophet Muhammad (p) is BIBLICAL. It's sanctioned by the Bible.

All this time these extreme evangelical Christian bigots who have been hounding Muslims due to Prophet Muhammad's (p) marriage to Lady Aisha have actually been insulting the Bible and Judeo-Christian traditions in the process.

Here is a quote from a Christian apologist who confirms the Biblical age of consent is in fact PUBERTY:

"...the Holy Bible makes a reference to the general age of a girl considered for marriage. The reference is found in a parable where God likens Israel to a baby girl whom Yahweh took in and then eventually married. The parable proceeds to liken Israel’s dabble with idolatry to a wife who commits adultery and prostitution.Not only does this specific parable present the marriageable age of a girl, the parable also assumes that this is a fact that was already well known and observed by the peoples, specifically Israel.

"On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, ‘Live!’ I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare. Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. Your food was fine flour, honey and olive oil. You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign LORD." Ezekiel 16:4-14

God mentions that the young babe attained the age for lovemaking after her breasts had formed and her pubic hairs had grown, clear signs of puberty. The reason we believe that the reference is to pubic hair is because a) the hair on the head of a girl grows many years before reaching the time of puberty, and b) the connection to nakedness suggests that the exposure of her body parts needed to be covered since it was shameful for them to be exposed for all to see. In other words, there was no shame for the hair of a girl’s head to be uncovered, but exposing one’s pubic hairs would be..."

"...Thus, we have a biblical text establishing puberty as the minimum age for marriage..."Christian fundamentalists, the sincere ones to their faith, will all be eating slices of humble pie and apologising to Muslims for their co-religionists' anti-Biblical attacks against Prophet Muhammad (p).

It's a classic case of Christians not knowing what their own Bible teaches them. To be fair, I personally have never come across a Jew had attacked a Muslim concerning Prophet Muhammad's (p) marriage to Aisha though I've come across numerous Christians who have been attacking such. Perhaps it's a case of Jews understand their traditions better than Christians and thus recognised the marriage of Prophet Muhammad (p) and Aisha was in fact normal and perfectly acceptable.

Maybe Christians in the West often confuse the age of consent laws in their respective countries (in the UK it's 16, America I believe it's 18 for most states) with the Bible. This is a problem for Christian communities.

I just hope there are sincere Christians out there who will apologise and admonish any other their co-religionists who may be throwing out such anti-Biblical arguments in the future.

Invitation to Islam

Pophet Jesus (p) taught people to do the Will of God (Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

As Mutah (temporary marriage) is something which is in the news currently let's hear an expert on the subject - Sheikh Dr Yasir Qadhi. Here we learn temporary marriage is not allowed in Islam. It was something which was allowed in the early days but was later prohibited (forbidden). The Sharia prohibits this type of marriage.

I don't recommend this debate - it's a hard watch and is characterised by many annoyances and the viewer would not gain anything from it that he/she could not gain from a Dr Shabir Ally debate on this topic or Zakir Hussain's debate v Samuel Green. Dr Shabir Ally's debate with Anis Shorosh or Zakir Hussain's debate with Samuel Green are more beneficial for learning a particular Muslim argumentation in a clear and concise fashion.Upon reflection and scrutiny Osama Abdallah won this debate due to the strength of his points regarding Deuteronomy 18:18 despite Osama Abdallah inexplicably confining
himself predominantly to the Old Testament and offering a poor verbal presentation which was characterised by a lack of fluidity, coherence (at times) and continuation. Osama Abdallah could have (and should have)
presented more mainstream Muslim argumentation (such as that from the
Song of Solomon and that pertaining to the paraclete in John 14:6) and presented the material with more
structure so the audience could follow along better. The interesting story here
is that for those who focus on argumentation solely (which should be all
of us) Osama won the debate despite his presentation style being quite
poor and lacking structure plus fluidity (at times). I personally believe
Osama was not well prepared for the debate (he had a number of debates in a
short period of time and accepted the debates at very short notice - which is
not the wisest move) which actually makes it even more interesting that the
Muslim position came out dominant. However, it must be noted, Osama's position only comes out on top after post-debate scrutiny and an appeal for consistency - things which Osama offered little in the actual debate though there are a few notes added into the debate video released by Osama which aid the viewer in following along.

The Christian (Anthony Rogers) was much more fluent and generally was clear in his presentation. He seemed to be playing up to the fundamentalist Christians in the audience which did not make for comfortable viewing. He did offer a sound insight into the Christian argumentation and made some interesting argumentations when discussing the Biblical passages. His style was overly abrasive and he seemed to be characterised by his unfair bias and thus losing all sense of objectivity.In the middle of the debate he starts to interpolate his own bits into the Bible though his eisegesis was interesting it did actually aid Osama's argumentation! Did anybody in the audience notice or were they all asleep? Aside from this he seemed to be simply borrowing from
dodgy sites off the internet - as evidenced by his espousal of the dishonest citing of
Al-Tabari and other shoddy internet hate-site material. Anthony Rogers is one who has a history of interpolating his
own bits and meanings into Biblical texts as shown by his belief that an
angel in the Old Testament is God (last I checked on this guy he believed an
angel in the Old Testament was God). He did not depart from his bad habit of
adding his own bits to the Bible - this meant he was tough to listen to and
was presenting material which was not exactly Biblical.

I think to the unbiased lay audience member, or the one-off lay viewer who does not review nor analyse the points the speakers brought up, the Christian position would have seemed stronger concerning whether Prophet Muhammad was mentioned in the modern day Bible.However the review brings up some reflections which actually show Osama's position was much stronger than Anthony's.ReviewUpon analysis Osama Abdallah made some very good points and convincing
argumentation too. He let's the audiene know Islam (submission to the Will of
God) is the original religion. Abdallah cited Rabbi Ben Abrahamson to
support his assertion that Muslim is the title of the believers (perhaps he
could have used the reference to those who do the Will of God in Mark 3:35
as well). More on Rabbi Ben Abrahamson:http://harunyahya.com/en/Short-videos---Dont-miss/29003/rabbi-ben-abrahamson-is-explainingOsama gives similarities between Prophet Moses and Prophet Muhammad whilst presenting a
case for Deut 18 referring to Prophet Muhammad. In fact this fits nobody better
than Prophet Muhammad as his similarity with Prophet Moses is noticeable. Thinking about it, hearing the Trinitarian Christian espousing the belief this
prophecy is about Jesus is surreal. I mean, didn't Rogers
and the Christian audience members stop to think that he is equating
the person who he believes to be God with Prophet Moses? Did alarm
bells not ring? They should have!Anthony Rogers was floundering here and his desperation to counter
the Muslim claims concerning Deut 18:18 not only led him to the presentation
of unscholarly and inaccurate materials but also inconsistent argumentations.Anthony’s poor researching was further highlighting by a blunder where he
attempted to impugn his opponent for writing Isaiah 7:14 was about Prophet
Muhammad – it turned out Osama Abdallah had no knowledge of this alleged claim!Osama generally adopts an esoteric approach to the BibleOsama adopts this approach but does not tell nor explain this to the audience thus making
him difficult to follow for the Christian audience throughout the debate. Bad communication. All he had to do
was at the on-set of his presentation state his methodology much in the way
Zakir Hussain did on this topic in his debate with Samuel Green and thus use it as a crux to appeal for consistency throughout the debate

Note: Origen (early CHRISTIAN scholar 185-254) believed Scripture had multiple levels of meaning. Apparent and esoteric meanings – foreshadowings, typologies. To enable the Christian audience to understand and empathise with his style
of argumentation Osama is advised to cite the Christian use of Hosea 11:1-2 to build a case for
consistency during the debateWhen Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt
I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from
me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. [NIV]

Christians as per Matthew 2:14 claim Hosea 11:1 is about Jesus – it’s
discernably about the nation of Israel yet Christians use an approach for Hosea 11
that they would not permit for a Muslim to use when showing examples of what he/she
feels to be prophecies of Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.Here the Christian is using an approach similar to Origen's and similar to the approach Osama Abdallah displayed in this debate. Osama missed an important appeal to consistency here and thus allowed his
opponent to be inconsistent when dismissing his (Osama’s) claims. This was a
crucial mistake by Osama setting an inconsistent and unfair tone for the debate (this oversight by Osama may have been due to his lack of preparation time)In general, Osama offers a lot of references without expanding on them much; it would have been
more appealing to a Christian if he had stated his esoteric approach and
to elaborate on each verse he was appealing to in order to stimulate the
listener to further thought and research.Of course not all Biblical references Osama appealed to would fall under the esoteric approach - the main one being Deut 18:18 which is a clear prophesy about one to come who will be like Prophet Moses.In this debate, as Osama did not present argumentation from the Song of Solomon or argumentation related to the Paraclete in John 16, the debate was going to be centred around Deuteronomy 18:18 and thus won/lost on this argumentation.Mini Debate Concernng Deuteronomy 18:18A prophet to come who will be like Moses; Abdallah states the big similarity
is that both Muhammad and Moses came with a Law. To be frank, there are numerous
similarities between Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Moses. Even the Christians
would not dispute such. Here are the points of similarity Osama highlighted:Normal birth, married, had children, came with a new law, passed away, Moses
was accepted by his (Jewish) people as a whole but Jesus was not (according to is
own did not receive him, they all forsook him and fled at the) most Jews do not
accept him (though Jesus was a Jew) whilst most Arabs accept Muhammad as a
Prophet, both Muhammad and Moses were rulers of their respective people, Jesus
was not.

So Osama highlights a number of good similarities between Moses and Muhammad whilst also showing they cannot apply to Jesus

For Osama to underline his point to the Christian audience it would have been
advised to cite a non-Muslim who believes in Prophets Muhammad and Moses being similar, Reverent James Dow:"As a statesman and a lawgiver Moses is the creator of the Jewish
people. He found a loose conglomeration of Semitic people, none of whom
had been anything but a slave, and whose ideas of religion were a
complete confusion. He led them out and he hammered them into a nation. with a
law and a national pride, and a compelling sense of being chosen by a
particular God who was supreme. The only man in history who can be compared
even remotely to him is Mohamet

From among thy brethrenArabs and Jews are cousins. Abdallah misses an
opportunity, despite mentioning it, to link this with:I tell you,
the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and
given to a nation that will produce the proper fruit. [Matthew 21:43 NLT].This goes back
to Abdallah’s lack of structure to his presentation – much of the core material was
there but he left the audience to join the dots when he as the presenter should
have been making it easier for them to follow his points.
Here Abdallah is arguing that Jesus in 21:43 is informing the Jews a new nation
[the Arabs] will take up the message next so it will leave the Children of
Israel.Osama also
mentioned the word 'ach' was used to signify the brotherhood of Jews and
Arabs. This word can mean relative and kinship so is not simply
restricted to blood brother

All in all,
Abdallah made the case that Arabs are indeed the brethren of Jews so
strengthened the affirmative position and left Rogers with no room to manoeuvre. Or did he?

Rogers actually showed his
staunch bias in this regard as he did not even grant the meaning which was
offered by Abdallah. Erm, Strongs Accordance at Blueletterbible.com confirms the
possible meaning of 'relative' and 'kinship' so is not simply restricted to blood
brother. Rogers
looked silly here due to his extreme bias which was a feature throughout the debate.Anthony Rogers then presents a case
based on context as the word brethren earlier on in this chapter refers to
Israelites. This is a good point Rogers raises – one that must be given further
thought. Having said that this point does not mean the meaning in Deut 18:18
cannot be the broader meaning rather than the restricted meaning. Coupled with Matthew 21:43 and the legitimate definition of 'relative' Osama had a strong case for this prophecy to be related to an Arab. However, Anthony did bring an interesting argument forward concerning context.Another
problem Rogers faces here is that of inconsistency as he would argue Hosea
11:1 refers to Jesus thus if Rogers is willing to employ such a broad mode of
interpretation when considering what he believes to be prophecies of Jesus in
the Old Testament he would look more than a little inconsistent when preventing
Muslims from using a legitimate definition of the word 'ach' in their
argumentations regarding Deut 18:18.

In all reality, Anthony despite raising an interesting objection he as a Bible-believing Christian was being inconsistent

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Arguing for the other side without knowing it?!

Anthony Rogers gets confusing in his attempt to argue against the similarities between Moses and Muhammad which highlights his lack of knowledge. He inadvertently shows Prophet Muhammad is like Prophet Moses!~35 min. He argues
the one like Prophet Moses is somebody who spoke dierectly with God. Erm, Prophet
Muhammad did speak directly with God in the night Journey. Anthony scores an own goal here!

So this reflected badly on Anthony as he had not done his research and
was arguing against the Muslim claim but unknowingly was confirming it as two of
the criterions he put forward in his attempts to exclude Prophet Mhammad from
Deut 18 (namely performance of miracles and direct communication with God)
re-inforce the Muslim position!However, Rogers
in the same opening statement changes the goal-posts again and makes the claim
that the Prophet should see God. Here we see Anthony adding his own bits to the
proceedings out of a desperation to argue against Osama's stance on Deut 18:18The Trinitarian problem for the claim Deut 18 refers to Prophet Jesus is that
this is problematic for Trinitarian beliefs. I mean, here you have Anthony
believing Moses is like the god according to Trinitarianism (Christian Trinitarian belief is Prophet Jesus was a ‘god-man’ -100%
human and 100% God). Also it flies in the face of the Trinitarian belief that Prophet Jesus
is God as it implies that 'the Prophet' will be raised up by God and thus have a God. Notice, Deut 18 is not teaching about God coming down but rather about sending a Prophet like a man (Prophet Moses)If you as a Trinitarian Christian believe Prophet Jesus is God then it's inconsistent and problematic for you (based on your theological presuppositions) to say your God has more similarities to Prophet Moses than Prophet Muhammad does with Prophet Moses. Think about it!This is an issue the Trinitarian Christians need to ponder upon. Their beliefs in the incarnation nor their beliefs in three persons of God do not solve this problem.

Genesis 17:20

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. [NIV]

Even the Christian apologist Anis Shorosh claims this Biblical verse refers to the Muslims.

Thus the question we are left with, if the Ishmaelites (Arabs) are to be a great nation then are they not going to have a Prophet and a religion from God? Food for thought, there's a double-serving when one combines this with Deuteronomy 18.

Deuteronomy 33:2

Anthony was superficial and inconsistent in his dismissal of Abdallah’s claims concerning this verse. Anthony claims it’s in the past tense and about the Lord.

Firstly, Anthony is inconsistent as Hosea 11:1 is in the past tense about Israel whilst he and other Christians would claim that it’s about Jesus. So Anthony was operating a double-standard. One standard for the verses he believes to be prophecies about Jesus (a standard of acceptance) whilst he had a standard of rejection for this verse simply because it’s argued to be about Muhammad. Anthony's bias evidently led him to inconsistency - inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument

Secondly, Anthony claims this is about the Lord. However, the Muslims who argue this verse refers to Muhammad do not believe Muhammad is God. They simply look at the verse in an esoteric fashion whilst also understanding the concept of agency in the OT. Thus the verse (if the concept of agency is applies) is speaking about the agent/s of God

If Anthony and other Christians are willing to use an esoteric approach to what they believe to be prophecies of Prophet Jesus in the OT then why disallow Abdallah and other Muslims who use the same approach for verses they believe could refer to Prophet Muhammad?

Osama and Isaiah 29:12In fact this fits Prophet Muhammad like a glove fits a hand. Prophet Muhammad repeated verbatim the words of God (the Quran)Isaiah 29:12 Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, "Please read this." And he will say, "I cannot read." [NASB]This again fits Muhammad like a glove fits a hand. Prophet Muhammad’s experience in the cave when he first received Revelation passed on by the Archangel Gabriel from God seems a remarkable fulfilment of this Prophecy in Isaiah. There is no arguing against this – the verse and the facts speak for themselves. The Muslim speaker need not have said anything else and the Christian speaker would have been foolish to argue against it.Silly argument from John 1Anthony presented a silly argument: because the people asked Prophet John the Baptist whether he was 'the Prophet' and that he was not an Arab then this means the Jews were expecting a Jew not an Arab. Anthony was simply relying on a mistake on the part of these people. In any case their mere asking John the Baptist does not necessarily mean they believed the Prophet could not have been an Ishmaelite (Arab)

In fact Anthony was being inconsistent as the same passage shows the Messiah will be distinct from 'the Prophet' thus Jesus could not have been 'the Prophet' mentioned in Deut 18.

Would Anthony accept that or would he say the people questioning Prophet John were mistaken?

Think about it. Anthony offers an inconsistent and superficial argument which may well have been found to be satisfactory to some of the fundamentalist Christians in the audience but for those who review these matters this was simply highlighting the lack of solid argumentation coming forth from the Trinitarian camp.

Rogers
showcases his reliance on internet hate-sites and his lack of research as well
as lack of consistency again. He claims the Quran teaches the stars stop 'angels' from
‘secretly sneaking’ into God’s presence. This is incorrect. However Muslims do believe the stars do drive away shayatin (devils which are not angels but rather jinn). An
interesting point here is that stars move at great speeds due to gravity (though
they appear quite static to us casual viewers on earth). So quite how Anthony can criticise the belief of shayatin
being driven away by stars (in light of their speed and emittance of heat and fire) is
beyond me. It gets even more inconsistent and desperate as Anthony (as a Bible believing Christian) believes
Angels came down from Heaven and had sex with human women resulting in
offspring which were giants.Now if Anthony has enough faith to believe that then he is simply being
ludicrously inconsistent in criticising Muslims for believing stars drive away
shayatin (devils) whom are not angels but jinnPagan influencesRogers goes down similar argumentation lines
his colleague David Wood did previously regarding pagans in pre-islamic Arabia - further showing Anthony’s bias and lack of research as well as original
argumentation. Here is Dave Wood receiving a sharp rebuke for this line of argumentation:http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/refuted-pagan-origins-of-islamic.htmlThe Debate in full - Anthony Rogers v Osama Abdallah on 'Is Prophet Muhammad in the Bible?'May Allah send his peace and blessings upon Prophets Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (and all the others). Ameen
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk